Nets Acquire Allen Crabbe For Andrew Nicholson

[Prokorov]

Hey, I dunno, I'm not the one doing it. All I know is that a lot of great pure shooters say the same thing. The stats a lot of times tell the same story.

oh i agree sitting for long periods/games and having to come in to shoot is hard... Crabbe hasnt had to do that. he played like 28-29 minutes a game. you arent sitting for long stretches in that scenario.

I'm not talking about sitting for long periods, I mean coming off the bench; unless sitting for around 8 mins could be understood as a long period.

Pure shooters a lot of times shoot better as starter than coming off the bench. They say it's cuz it's hard to make shots cold, cuz it's a lot of pressure. But maybe it's also cuz they are more open playing with more talented offensive players? The defensive players would be less talented tho.......

Anyways, lets look at some stats. Reggie Miller simply refused to come off the bench cuz he says he would be stiff. Ray Allen was shooting 44, 45% as his last two years as starter and then 42 and 38% the next two seasons coming off the bench. Mike Miller 48%, then 36%. Shane Battier: 38/39% as starter, then 33/34%; career 39% as starter 36% off the bench.

Korver was shooting 41/44% off the bench, then 46/47/49% after being made a starter. Career 45% as starter, 42% off bench. Redick was shooting 40/42/37% off the bench, then 40/44/48% as starter. Career 44% as starter, 38% off bench.

Psychology?

the examples you gave the guys came off the bench as young players... who then started in their prime. they improved so obviously they will shoot better in their prime

the other exmples are guys who went from in their prime to the end of their careers in their decline. obviously you shoot worse as you decline.

it isnt bench/starting. thats irrelevant.

[DusterBuster]

I thought the Crabbe match last year by Blazers was iow class move by Blazers bc if they had believed in Crabbe long term they would not have signed Evan Turner to the contract they did. It felt like main reason they matched was bc they didn't want to let a talent walk for nothing, and expected they would be able to trade him (or Turner) for a positive return down the line. So from Crabbe's angle their actions could have felt insulting or disloyal on two different levels

Given this, I was surprised Crabbe played as WELL as he did last year - I expected a slide in his performance both bc of Turner's impact on spacing and usage. And because it seemed clear Crabbe was disappointed to be returning to Blazers.

A recent Locked on Nets podcast where they interviewed someone who wrote about Blazers discussed both points. The Blazers guy also added that from watching and getting to know Crabbe he seemed like someone who needed to be engaged to play his best, and he just wasn't as engaged for parts of last year. He also mentioned that when Crabbe was locked in he could play very good defense, and that Crabbe moved extremely well off the ball and that he projected as a JJ Redick type player if he achieved his potential

---

About whether Marks should have been able to get a pick for giving huge tax savings to Blazers, I assume it would have been easier to do that if it wasn't that Blazers had two other players they presumably would have preferred moving if they had had to attach a pick to get rid of salary. Crabbe was by far the most valuable player of their three albatross contracts.

Well he'll be pretty engaged this year. Lots of shots to go around and he'll be pushed to be assertive on both ends.

And yeah, I thought the Blazers only matched just out of spite. I hope that tax bill was worth it.

[steady]

I thought the Crabbe match last year by Blazers was iow class move by Blazers bc if they had believed in Crabbe long term they would not have signed Evan Turner to the contract they did. It felt like main reason they matched was bc they didn't want to let a talent walk for nothing, and expected they would be able to trade him (or Turner) for a positive return down the line. So from Crabbe's angle their actions could have felt insulting or disloyal on two different levels

Given this, I was surprised Crabbe played as WELL as he did last year - I expected a slide in his performance both bc of Turner's impact on spacing and usage. And because it seemed clear Crabbe was disappointed to be returning to Blazers.

A recent Locked on Nets podcast where they interviewed someone who wrote about Blazers discussed both points. The Blazers guy also added that from watching and getting to know Crabbe he seemed like someone who needed to be engaged to play his best, and he just wasn't as engaged for parts of last year. He also mentioned that when Crabbe was locked in he could play very good defense, and that Crabbe moved extremely well off the ball and that he projected as a JJ Redick type player if he achieved his potential

---

About whether Marks should have been able to get a pick for giving huge tax savings to Blazers, I assume it would have been easier to do that if it wasn't that Blazers had two other players they presumably would have preferred moving if they had had to attach a pick to get rid of salary. Crabbe was by far the most valuable player of their three albatross contracts.

Well he'll be pretty engaged this year. Lots of shots to go around and he'll be pushed to be assertive on both ends.

And yeah, I thought the Blazers only matched just out of spite. I hope that tax bill was worth it.

Why would BKN fans be salty about the Blazers' match? That Blazers decision turned Crabbes $75 million/ for four years contract into a $36 million contract for 3 years deal, for BKN. We're grateful the Blazers matched ...

[DusterBuster]

Well he'll be pretty engaged this year. Lots of shots to go around and he'll be pushed to be assertive on both ends.

And yeah, I thought the Blazers only matched just out of spite. I hope that tax bill was worth it.

Why would BKN fans be salty about the Blazers' match? That Blazers decision turned Crabbes $75 million/ for four years contract into a $36 million contract for 3 years deal, for BKN. We're grateful the Blazers matched ...

Then why is it a "low class move" by the Blazers to retain their own player at whatever the cost? They matched him in hopes he would improve and be a tradeable asset in a year or two, it didn't happen so they gave him to Brooklyn. That's a simple business gamble that didn't pay off for them. Nothing low or high class about it.

[MrDollarBills]

I thought the Crabbe match last year by Blazers was iow class move by Blazers bc if they had believed in Crabbe long term they would not have signed Evan Turner to the contract they did. It felt like main reason they matched was bc they didn't want to let a talent walk for nothing, and expected they would be able to trade him (or Turner) for a positive return down the line. So from Crabbe's angle their actions could have felt insulting or disloyal on two different levels

Given this, I was surprised Crabbe played as WELL as he did last year - I expected a slide in his performance both bc of Turner's impact on spacing and usage. And because it seemed clear Crabbe was disappointed to be returning to Blazers.

A recent Locked on Nets podcast where they interviewed someone who wrote about Blazers discussed both points. The Blazers guy also added that from watching and getting to know Crabbe he seemed like someone who needed to be engaged to play his best, and he just wasn't as engaged for parts of last year. He also mentioned that when Crabbe was locked in he could play very good defense, and that Crabbe moved extremely well off the ball and that he projected as a JJ Redick type player if he achieved his potential

---

About whether Marks should have been able to get a pick for giving huge tax savings to Blazers, I assume it would have been easier to do that if it wasn't that Blazers had two other players they presumably would have preferred moving if they had had to attach a pick to get rid of salary. Crabbe was by far the most valuable player of their three albatross contracts.

Well he'll be pretty engaged this year. Lots of shots to go around and he'll be pushed to be assertive on both ends.

And yeah, I thought the Blazers only matched just out of spite. I hope that tax bill was worth it.

Your front office/ownership matched out of spite/pride. If they really wanted Crabbe, he'd still be there. No need to get mad at the comment.

He's in good hands. Be sure to come check us during the season. We'll be a fun team to watch, win or lose.

[steady]

Why would BKN fans be salty about the Blazers' match? That Blazers decision turned Crabbes $75 million/ for four years contract into a $36 million contract for 3 years deal, for BKN. We're grateful the Blazers matched ...

Then why is it a "low class move" by the Blazers to retain their own player at whatever the cost? They matched him in hopes he would improve and be a tradeable asset in a year or two, it didn't happen so they gave him to Brooklyn. That's a simple business gamble that didn't pay off for them. Nothing low or high class about it.

I understand it from business perspective -- but that's just it, there was no human component. The Blazers did not want AC long term. They just wanted to keep him so he could improve to become a better tradeable asset. And from ACs perspective that had to suck.

[DusterBuster]

Why would BKN fans be salty about the Blazers' match? That Blazers decision turned Crabbes $75 million/ for four years contract into a $36 million contract for 3 years deal, for BKN. We're grateful the Blazers matched ...

Then why is it a "low class move" by the Blazers to retain their own player at whatever the cost? They matched him in hopes he would improve and be a tradeable asset in a year or two, it didn't happen so they gave him to Brooklyn. That's a simple business gamble that didn't pay off for them. Nothing low or high class about it.

I understand it from business perspective -- but that's just it, there was no human component. The Blazers did not want AC long term. They just wanted to keep him so he could improve to become a better tradeable asset. And from ACs perspective that had to suck.

OMG, a business running like a business and tying to improve their along term viability.... HOW DARE THEY!!!!

Seriously, cut this "human component" bullcrap. Every team in the NBA runs like this, even your Nets. Teams don't let RFA's just walk if they have the desire and finances to keep them. Having tradable assets is an important part of building a successful team. And considering just how much money the Blazers have given their players over the last few years, you can save me your crocodile tears over the Blazers supposed "human component". Additionally, considering how many minutes Crabbe got and how big of a role he still played in Portland AFTER they matched the contract, it's not like they just paid him and stashed him deep on the bench never to be seen again until they found some trade for him to use him as a suppose rare trading card that you're trying to make it out as.

Sorry to go on a bit of a rant here, but this argument that you guys are making is just downright stupid. There's literally no justification you guys have for that viewpoint other than just being salty for salts sake.

[ChokeFasncists]

oh i agree sitting for long periods/games and having to come in to shoot is hard... Crabbe hasnt had to do that. he played like 28-29 minutes a game. you arent sitting for long stretches in that scenario.

I'm not talking about sitting for long periods, I mean coming off the bench; unless sitting for around 8 mins could be understood as a long period.

Pure shooters a lot of times shoot better as starter than coming off the bench. They say it's cuz it's hard to make shots cold, cuz it's a lot of pressure. But maybe it's also cuz they are more open playing with more talented offensive players? The defensive players would be less talented tho.......

Anyways, lets look at some stats. Reggie Miller simply refused to come off the bench cuz he says he would be stiff. Ray Allen was shooting 44, 45% as his last two years as starter and then 42 and 38% the next two seasons coming off the bench. Mike Miller 48%, then 36%. Shane Battier: 38/39% as starter, then 33/34%; career 39% as starter 36% off the bench.

Korver was shooting 41/44% off the bench, then 46/47/49% after being made a starter. Career 45% as starter, 42% off bench. Redick was shooting 40/42/37% off the bench, then 40/44/48% as starter. Career 44% as starter, 38% off bench.

Psychology?

the examples you gave the guys came off the bench as young players... who then started in their prime. they improved so obviously they will shoot better in their prime

the other exmples are guys who went from in their prime to the end of their careers in their decline. obviously you shoot worse as you decline.

it isnt bench/starting. thats irrelevant.

Come on now, players don't go like, young at 26, prime at 27, suddenly much better now; or prime at 34, old at 35, suddenly drop off. Besides, some of the post prime drop off guys actually got better later, maybe gotten used to it? And some of the pre prime improve guys had some better season before. It just so happens that the same phenomenon happens in the switching years. Just as importantly, they do say it's different for them.

[steady]

Then why is it a "low class move" by the Blazers to retain their own player at whatever the cost? They matched him in hopes he would improve and be a tradeable asset in a year or two, it didn't happen so they gave him to Brooklyn. That's a simple business gamble that didn't pay off for them. Nothing low or high class about it.

I understand it from business perspective -- but that's just it, there was no human component. The Blazers did not want AC long term. They just wanted to keep him so he could improve to become a better tradeable asset. And from ACs perspective that had to suck.

OMG, a business running like a business and tying to improve their along term viability.... HOW DARE THEY!!!!

Seriously, cut this "human component" bullcrap. Every team in the NBA runs like this, even your Nets. Teams don't let RFA's just walk if they have the desire and finances to keep them. Having tradable assets is an important part of building a successful team. And considering just how much money the Blazers have given their players over the last few years, you can save me your crocodile tears over the Blazers supposed "human component". Additionally, considering how many minutes Crabbe got and how big of a role he still played in Portland AFTER they matched the contract, it's not like they just paid him and stashed him deep on the bench never to be seen again until they found some trade for him to use him as a suppose rare trading card that you're trying to make it out as.

Sorry to go on a bit of a rant here, but this argument that you guys are making is just downright stupid. There's literally no justification you guys have for that viewpoint other than just being salty for salts sake.

no need to apologize for your rant - - yeah, the NBA is a business amd players are thought of as assets - they have to be. My main point is just that the gamble that Blazers made was foolish one especially because they were counting on the tradeable asset continuing to improve even though he was being put in a situation he was trying like hell to get out of .

When you force people to do things it generally does not lead to good things --
and yeah I do also think it was low class. Just my opinion ..though . we can disagree.

[MrDollarBills]

This dude comes on here ranting like a lunatic over Allen Crabbe and calls -us- salty. Lol.

[kamaze]

Well he'll be pretty engaged this year. Lots of shots to go around and he'll be pushed to be assertive on both ends.

And yeah, I thought the Blazers only matched just out of spite. I hope that tax bill was worth it.

Why would BKN fans be salty about the Blazers' match? That Blazers decision turned Crabbes $75 million/ for four years contract into a $36 million contract for 3 years deal, for BKN. We're grateful the Blazers matched ...

I think Portland matched because they had the money and also a little ego.
Maybe he wasn't worth that contract in Portland (?) from a birds eye view they have a couple of big salaries and his was the one that got traded away.

[kamaze]

I understand it from business perspective -- but that's just it, there was no human component. The Blazers did not want AC long term. They just wanted to keep him so he could improve to become a better tradeable asset. And from ACs perspective that had to suck.

OMG, a business running like a business and tying to improve their along term viability.... HOW DARE THEY!!!!

Seriously, cut this "human component" bullcrap. Every team in the NBA runs like this, even your Nets. Teams don't let RFA's just walk if they have the desire and finances to keep them. Having tradable assets is an important part of building a successful team. And considering just how much money the Blazers have given their players over the last few years, you can save me your crocodile tears over the Blazers supposed "human component". Additionally, considering how many minutes Crabbe got and how big of a role he still played in Portland AFTER they matched the contract, it's not like they just paid him and stashed him deep on the bench never to be seen again until they found some trade for him to use him as a suppose rare trading card that you're trying to make it out as.

Sorry to go on a bit of a rant here, but this argument that you guys are making is just downright stupid. There's literally no justification you guys have for that viewpoint other than just being salty for salts sake.

no need to apologize for your rant - - yeah, the NBA is a business amd players are thought of as assets - they have to be. My main point is just that the gamble that Blazers made was foolish one especially because they were counting on the tradeable asset continuing to improve even though he was being put in a situation he was trying like hell to get out of .

When you force people to do things it generally does not lead to good things --
and yeah I do also think it was low class. Just my opinion ..though . we can disagree.

They run their franchise different there making a lot of moves, in the eastern conference it's more conservative generally.
Once team's get in the playoffs they're satisfied with that. Franchises dont gamble as much look at the Pacers situation with Paul George.

[DusterBuster]

OMG, a business running like a business and tying to improve their along term viability.... HOW DARE THEY!!!!

Seriously, cut this "human component" bullcrap. Every team in the NBA runs like this, even your Nets. Teams don't let RFA's just walk if they have the desire and finances to keep them. Having tradable assets is an important part of building a successful team. And considering just how much money the Blazers have given their players over the last few years, you can save me your crocodile tears over the Blazers supposed "human component". Additionally, considering how many minutes Crabbe got and how big of a role he still played in Portland AFTER they matched the contract, it's not like they just paid him and stashed him deep on the bench never to be seen again until they found some trade for him to use him as a suppose rare trading card that you're trying to make it out as.

Sorry to go on a bit of a rant here, but this argument that you guys are making is just downright stupid. There's literally no justification you guys have for that viewpoint other than just being salty for salts sake.

no need to apologize for your rant - - yeah, the NBA is a business amd players are thought of as assets - they have to be. My main point is just that the gamble that Blazers made was foolish one especially because they were counting on the tradeable asset continuing to improve even though he was being put in a situation he was trying like hell to get out of .

When you force people to do things it generally does not lead to good things --
and yeah I do also think it was low class. Just my opinion ..though . we can disagree.

They run their franchise different there making a lot of moves, in the eastern conference it's more conservative generally.
Once team's get in the playoffs they're satisfied with that. Franchises dont gamble as much look at the Pacers situation with Paul George.

Exactly. My only contention with this whole thing is calling a different model of running a franchise "low class". I find that fairly insulting and ignorant as it relates to a simple differing of philosophies on business operations. He was a RFA and the Blazers reserved the right to match his contract at whatever price they wanted. They had an owner who was willing to match it and they did. They took a gamble that didn't pay off and all parties involved got what they wanted a year later. That's not "low class", it's just business. Crabbe got paid an ungodly amount of money, the Nets got the player they wanted in the first place and the Blazers got out of a roll of the dice that came up snake eyes.

If only I could be so lucky as to work for a "low class" organization that's willing to pay me 17 million a year....

[ChokeFasncists]

no need to apologize for your rant - - yeah, the NBA is a business amd players are thought of as assets - they have to be. My main point is just that the gamble that Blazers made was foolish one especially because they were counting on the tradeable asset continuing to improve even though he was being put in a situation he was trying like hell to get out of .

When you force people to do things it generally does not lead to good things --
and yeah I do also think it was low class. Just my opinion ..though . we can disagree.

They run their franchise different there making a lot of moves, in the eastern conference it's more conservative generally.
Once team's get in the playoffs they're satisfied with that. Franchises dont gamble as much look at the Pacers situation with Paul George.

Exactly. My only contention with this whole thing is calling a different model of running a franchise "low class". I find that fairly insulting and ignorant as it relates to a simple differing of philosophies on business operations. He was a RFA and the Blazers reserved the right to match his contract at whatever price they wanted. They had an owner who was willing to match it and they did. They took a gamble that didn't pay off and all parties involved got what they wanted a year later. That's not "low class", it's just business. Crabbe got paid an ungodly amount of money, the Nets got the player they wanted in the first place and the Blazers got out of a roll of the dice that came up snake eyes.

If only I could be so lucky as to work for a "low class" organization that's willing to pay me 17 million a year....

In the wiretap forum, we were talking about another RFA situation, how the Rockets handled the DMo restricted free agency. What do you think?